OTC 15112 Topsides Lessons Learned from Subsea Tie-Back Projects

Richard Livingston, David Tong, Eric Wensel, and Michael Whitworth: Mustang Engineering L.P.
Copyright 2003, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 58 May 2003. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

Abstract A project engineer responsible for a topsides upgrade on a subsea tie-back project, often faces challenges that may not be apparent based on his or her experiences on typical new build facility type projects. This paper is intended to help that engineer. It is a compilation of lessons learned from several project engineers having relevant experiences on subsea tieback projects. Introduction The paper is comprised of lessons learned as presented by four project engineers, each of whom have worked on several subsea tie-back projects. It focuses on topsides facilities issues on projects where there is a subsea tie-back to an existing facility. The paper attempts to avoid technical issues in the Subsea Teams scope and issues not specific to subsea tie-back projects. The objective is to better prepare a project engineer who is experienced with topsides new-build type facilities for some of the project challenges associated with subsea tie-backs. In this paper, major issues are segmented into various categories including flowlines, chemical injection, flow line pigging, slug control, flare, relief and blowdown systems, metering, management of change, and subsea interfaces. Flowlines When the flowline comes on to the host platform, it becomes the Topside Design Teams scope. There are several design decisions that must be considered including the location of the flowline shutdown valves (SDV), the choice of flowline material and the selection of the various flowline instrumentation. Location of Shutdown Valves. The location of the flowline shutdown valves should be related to safety on the platform. The concern is if there is a failure (loss of containment) in the flowline / riser upstream of the shutdown valve, there would

be no way of stopping the leak. As a worst case scenario the entire platform could be lost. Typically, there are three options to mitigate this risk: 1) Install a subsea shutdown valve. This option is very expensive. Also, it may not be possible to install the shutdown valve very close to the platform, which would increase the volume of gas between the shutdown valve and the platform. 2) Install the topsides shutdown valve where it would minimize risk of failure in the riser / flowline upstream of the valve. For instance, the shutdown valve could be located below the lowest equipment deck on a fixed jacket type platform where this was considered an issue. Some valves are not easily accessible and may now be located in the platform air gap or wave zone. 3) Increase the integrity of the riser / flowline upstream of the shutdown valve. This can be achieved by providing any of the following: - Added wall thickness - Insulation - Corrosion protective coating - Explosion protection around flowline and SDV - Corrosion monitoring - Leak monitoring - Orient flowlines to minimize impact of jet fire - Minimize connections upstream of SDV - Add a second SDV Flowline Materials. Design pressures of 10-15,000 PSI in large flowline diameters have become more common over the last few years. These high pressures are especially common in subsea tie-backs. The selection of materials for the flowline is dictated by code requirements. Typically upstream of the pig launcher/receiver, the flowline design will be governed by ASME B31.8 - Gas Transmission Systems And Distribution Piping. Since ASME B31.8 does not consider tensile strength in its determination of allowable stress, an API 5L material, with a high yield strength but a relatively low tensile strength, is the popular choice of material. Note that, if in Gulf of Mexico (GOM) waters, a departure from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will need to be obtained to allow for using the ASME B31.8 through the pig launcher. Also, the construction factor dictated by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) is lower than the construction factor dictated by the B31.8 code. The less stringent construction factor is sometimes allowed but, again, will require a departure request.

OTC 15112

Downstream of the pig launcher / receiver, the flowline design is dictated by ASME B31.3 Process Piping. Since ASME B31.3 does consider tensile strength in its determination of allowable stress, an API 5L material is typically not adequate. Often, the material of choice is AISI 4130N or 4130Q&T material. Upstream of the pig launcher, flowline changes of direction will often require five diameter (5D) bends. Consideration should be given to specifying and sourcing these 5D bends, especially if using high grade material. Also, consideration should be given to the ability to bend various high strength materials. Some materials, such as AISI 4130 steel, are difficult to bend and yet still maintain its original characteristics. Flowline Instrumentation. Due to the high pressures, large diameters and high velocities associated with subsea tie-back flowlines, some unique instrument requirements are presented. Some of the instrument issues that should be addressed are as follows: - Consider using a non-intrusive pig signal. - Make thermowells short and check for vibrationinduced failure. - Consider chloride stress cracking in stainless steel instruments especially if flowline is warm. - If a flowline heater is required, consider using a rupture disk in addition to a smaller relief valve to protect against tube failure. Note An MMS departure is required for GOM applications. - Locate a manual isolation valve upstream of the boarding SDV so the SDV can be tested. The location of the flowline Pressure Safety High/Low (PSH/L) should be given some discussion. The MMS requires that the PSH/L be located upstream of the boarding SDV. If the small PSH/L instrument connection broke, there would be no way to stop the flow. If a manual isolation valve was located upstream, the flowline could be isolated, but consideration should be given to how the valve can be closed if the failure resulted in a fire. For example, on one project, a fail safe actuator was put on the isolation valve along with a remote control station. This provided a way to close the valve. Chemical Injection Typical topsides chemical requirements for sub-sea projects include: - Hydrate Inhibitors (Methanol, LDHI, etc.) - Corrosion Inhibitor - Paraffin Inhibitor - Asphaltene Inhibitor - Scale Inhibitor Hydrate Inhibitor. Generally, topsides will need to provide hydrate inhibitor injection to protect the wells, jumpers, subsea manifold, etc., from hydrate formation. The requirements are dictated by the subsea configuration and are usually defined by the Subsea or Flow Assurance Team. Hydrate inhibitor designs can be broken into two categories. Non-Continuous Hydrate Inhibitor Injection. Under normal flowing conditions, if the production fluid temperature stays above the hydrate formation temperature, continuous

hydrate inhibitor injection may not be required. However, even if continuous hydrate inhibitor injection is not required, typically methanol injection is still needed during well start-up or pressurized shut-in conditions. The Flow Assurance Team should develop procedures for start-up and planned and unplanned shut-ins of the subsea wells. Continuous Hydrate Inhibitor Injection. If, under normal flowing conditions, the production fluid temperature drops below the hydrate formation temperature, continuous hydrate inhibitor injection is necessary. Typically these hydrate inhibitors are methanol, glycol, or various low dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs). Injection Equipment. (Based on methanol injection). Hydrate inhibitor injection systems usually include on-loading facilities, storage facilities, coarse and fine filtration, booster pumps, injection pumps, meters and distribution manifolds. Some facilities may also require either methanol or glycol reclamation due to the significant injection quantities. These systems are beyond the scope of this paper. Pumps. High rate, high pressure, and high integrity metering pumps are typically required for hydrate inhibitor injection pumps. Often, high quality diaphragm metering pumps are used. These pumps offer the advantage of having no mechanical seals and have minimal contact with the injected fluid. If the injection is not continuous, plunger type pumps may be considered. Typically, each injection point has a dedicated pump or pump heads; thus removing the requirement to split flow using control valves on the pump discharge. However, directing flow using flow control valves may still be considered if there are significant footprint or cost limitations. A flow splitter panel can then be used. Consider designing the pump piping to allow for starting the pump in an unloaded condition. This may increase pump life. The pump availability must also be determined. Should the pumps be available on loss of main power? The Flow Assurance Team must answer this question. If so, the pumps may require power supplied by the emergency power system. On one such project, a pump was powered by the emergency power system, allowing batch pumping of methanol in case of a topsides loss of main power. In addition to injection pumps, injection booster pumps may be required if the pumps net positive suction head (NPSH) requirement is greater than the pumps available NPSH. Like the injection pumps, operations may desire that these pumps not have mechanical seals. Injection Metering. For high rate injection, such as methanol injection, on-line metering may be necessary. Due to the high pressure and pulsating service, meter selection is critical. Turbine meters, often used in liquid service, are usually not effective. Positive displacement type meters are often preferred in this service. Piping & Tubing. The chemicals are delivered to the subsea wells and manifold via umbilicals provided by the Subsea Team. These umbilicals usually have one or more injection tubes per injection point. Typically a manifold is provided on the topsides to allow for lining pumps or pump heads to different subsea injection points. Depending on the

OTC 15112

desired flexibility, this manifold can be simple or quite complicated. The Flow Assurance and/or Subsea Team will typically dictate the flexibility desired. One option is to use hydraulic type hoses and bulk heads in lieu of a valved manifold. The piping system on the injection pump discharge is dependent on the injection pressures and injection line sizes. Stainless steel tubing is often used; however, standard compression type fittings may not meet the required pressure ratings. At higher pressures, either coned and threaded tubing connection systems or welded and flanged piping systems are required. Note that coned and threaded systems are relatively difficult to install and may leak if installed in a vibrating environment. Overall system cleanliness before startup will be dictated by the Subsea Team. Determine the cleanliness requirement for each part of the system early in the design process. Consider making provisions for flushing the system by strategically placing valves and bypasses. Filters & Strainers. Selection and placement of filters and strainers should be determined by the requirements of both operations and the Subsea Teams. Often a coarse strainer or filter is required at the methanol loading point to catch large solids. Filters may be placed upstream of the injection pumps. Also, a fine filter may be placed upstream of the umbilical connection. Finally, some subsea tie-back projects have used a recirculation filtering system to continuously clean the methanol. Storage. The amount of methanol storage is first determined by whether injection is continuous or used for batch treating. For continuous injection, the storage tank is sized to minimize the frequency of reloading. For high rate injection requirements, typically a one to two week supply is used. For batch treating, storage capacity for two batch treatments is often required. The storage capacity should be given careful consideration based on operational requirements, risk, and safety. The type of tank must also be considered. The storage tank could be a pressure vessel or an atmospheric tank-type design. The decision is typically a function of safety and cost considerations. On some installations, methanol storage can be put inside the hull or even a well conductor. The tank material is usually stainless steel or internally coated carbon steel. For large tanks, stainless steel may be impractical. Internally coated carbon steel tanks have proven to be effective. Consult the coating manufacturer for a coating suitable for methanol service. Methanol and Chemical Onloading. Bulk loading of methanol is one of the more dangerous activities associated with methanol injection. Loading is often done by pumping methanol from a boat to the platform storage tank. Special considerations should be given to this procedure. Features can be designed into the system to minimize risks, i.e., better communication between platform and boat, high tank level alarms, break away hoses, etc. Flowline Pigging Wax buildup in the flowline can be mechanically removed by pigging with scraper pigs. If flowline pigging is required, flowline and topsides equipment design should allow for the

scraper pigs to be run periodically through the production flowlines. Pigging is usually achieved with oil or gas. Oil Pigging. Oil Pigging Systems usually include pig launcher and receiver, pigging pumps, oil buyback facilities, metering and flow control. Pig Launcher & Receiver. Pig launchers and receivers are preferably installed horizontally to facilitate removal of collected paraffin following a pig run. Pigging Pumps. In some cases, hydraulic calculations might indicate the required pigging pump discharge pressures are within the capability of the existing sales oil export pipeline pumps. Hence, instead of installing a new pigging pump, one or more of the existing oil pipeline pumps could be used. Even if a new pump is required, typically the existing charge pumps can be used to pump oil to the pigging pump. When using oil as the pigging medium, the operation is simply a non-compressible fluid volume displacement; the pigs location and speed can be controlled at all times. Size the pump to achieve the desired pig velocity. Typically, a velocity of 3 ft/sec is recommended (15,000 bpd in an 8 ID pipeline). This rate is most effective for wax removal and adequate sweep of liquid at the low spots. Worst case pump discharge pressure is generally a function of line losses, pigging friction and back pressure on the return flowline. The Flow Assurance or Subsea Team should be able to calculate the discharge pressure requirements. It is desirable to keep back-pressure on the return riser. The return riser is typically circulated to an inlet separator to maintain a back pressure on the pigging pumps. If the back pressure on the flowline is too low, the pressure in the inlet riser could fall below the bubble point of the black oil, i.e. vacuum, allowing gas to break out. This could adversely affect the pump, and the pig velocity will vary substantially without control. Oil Buyback Facilities. The source of pigging oil must be determined. Oil for the pigging operation may be supplied from one of two possible sources: 1) Other production not dependent upon the subsea system. This typically takes discharge off of the existing crude oil booster pumps. 2) A new sales oil buyback system installed to allow purchase of crude oil from the facilitys oil export pipelines (if available produced oil volumes are insufficient). If an oil export pipeline check valve is in-place, a contingency plan shall lock it open prior to any pigging operation. A large dry oil storage tank filled prior to a pigging exercise is usually unreasonable (approximately 300 barrels per mile in an 8 ID line). Meters. If the subsea produced oil is metered separately from the platform produced oil, the oil used for pigging must be metered as it goes into the flowline. See section on metering for more details. Gas Pigging. Gas pigging serves as an alternative to oil pigging. It can have the advantage of requiring less capital cost than oil pigging option as it does not require a pigging pump.

OTC 15112

The source of gas should preferably be the dry gas from the gas dehydration system. Therefore, the flowline will stay in the safe zone of the hydrate formation curve, both during the pigging operation or if the pigging gas is required to remain in the flowline for some time. When produced gas is not available, a sales gas pipeline buyback system could provide a high pressure gas source for the pigging operation. The pigging gas rates vary based on the flowline size, length, and system configuration. For a 6 I.D. x 1 1/2 mile long flowline loop, 5 MMSCD gas rate is adequate to make a round trip in less than 2 hours, with a target pig velocity of 3 ft/sec. Due to the nature of gas pigging, however, the pig velocity is difficult, if not impossible, to control. The pigging circuit could line up the outlet of the receiver to the inlet separator. Because gas is a compressible medium, the pig velocity will vary erratically, and its position is extremely difficult, or impossible, to locate. Once the pig passes the base of the return riser, the pig exit velocity along the ascend of the riser is also impossible to control by the flowrate. A flow restriction device is recommended on the outlet of the receiver to control the liquid and gas arrival rates, and the pig velocity. Without this flow restriction, the exit liquid / gas instantaneous peak rates could easily overwhelm the process system and cause an upset. Figures 1 and 2 show a gas pigging simulation with and without restrictions on the return flowline, respectively. Slug Control The handling of slugs is another topsides design issue. The Subsea Team will perform steady-state and transient modeling of the subsea production system to determine the likelihood and magnitude of slugging in the flowlines. The simulations will require input from the Topsides Design Team for design data, such as the back pressure on the flowline. Modeling results will suggest the impacts of terraininduced or hydrodynamic slugging, which will be expected and will need to be accommodated on the topsides. Based on the simulations, the Subsea Team should be able to provide a rate versus time graph. The slug catcher volume requirement is a function of the allowable dumping rate of the vessel and the rate and period of the slug(s). The Topsides Design Team will need to determine whether the inlet separator will absorb the incoming slug or if the inlet separator will pass the slug to downstream equipment. If the downstream equipment can handle slugs, it may be possible to minimize the inlet separator size. However, consideration should be given to the effect the slug will have on metering and separation. Flare, Relief and Blowdown Systems Due to a number of characteristics specific to subsea tie-back systems, the flare and relief system on the host platform may not be adequate for the subsea tie-back. Challenges include high relief rates if a topside choke is used, low relief gas temperatures, and flowline blowdown requirements. Inlet Choke & Maximum Relief. If a topsides inlet choke is used on a multi-well subsea tieback, the topside relief system

worst-case relief scenario will probably be dictated by the failure (or blowby) of this choke. The gas blowby rate is proportional to the size of the valve and the maximum pressure in the flowline or flowline pressure safety high (PSH) setting. The choke must be large enough to minimize its pressure drop under normal flowing conditions. The PSH setting must be set high enough to avoid trips due to varying flowline pressures during normal operation. Both of these factors lead to high gas blowby rates. An example of the relief rate introduced by a sudden inlet choke failure is shown in Figure 3. Cold Temperature Issues. Low temperature relief system design may be a concern due to Joules-Thompson cooling across pressure safety valves (PSVs), flare valves and blowdown valves. The low arrival temperatures associated with tie-backs, as opposed to the warmer temperatures associated with platform wells, requires a close look at relief system temperatures. A relief header built using standard ASTM A-106 Grade B material is rated for a minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) of (-)20F. Furthermore, the relief vessel often is rated for temperatures even higher. For instantaneous, short term relief, the heat capacity of the steel pipe and vessel may be adequate to keep the metal temperature above the MDMT. In this case, only a short length of piping downstream of the relieving device needs to be made of low temperature material. This length can be calculated based on a model that measures temperature change in the gas and pipe as a function of time and distance. The more difficult low temperature problem in tie-back relief systems is when a flowline blowdown is required. If operating criteria dictates a controlled blowdown of the flowline, more than just a short distance of pipe may need to be designed for low temperatures. A possible solution could be found in ASME B31.3 and API 579 Recommended Practice for Fitness for Service which have some qualifications for preexisting piping systems that allow for as low as -50F (MDMT) in ASTM A-106 Grade B piping. Flowline Blowdown. An additional problem associated with flowline blowdown is liquids handling. The facilities must be able to handle the liquids condensed out downstream of the blowdown valve or that are swept from the flowline up to the platform due to high gas velocity. This may not be a problem if the blowdown is planned in advance (e.g. platform evacuation due to a hurricane) and the liquids can be pumped out of the inlet separator into the pipeline or a large storage tank, but during a platform shutdown there is rarely a means of removing the accumulated liquids. HIPPS. Relief system design is a common concern with tiebacks. Typically, the existing relief system is only designed fit-for-purpose for the original platform production requirements. The tie-back often creates pressure, liquid carry over, radiation and temperature inadequacies in the existing host platform relief system. One alternative to consider for subsea tie-backs is the High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS). The HIPPS

OTC 15112

system is a high reliability instrumented safety shutdown system featuring dual shutdown valves on the incoming flowline. The basis for the HIPPS system is that the inlet SDVs must be able to close in less time than it takes for the flowline pressure to increase from pressure safety high (PSH) to the downstream systems maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP). As a rule of thumb, the time allowed for the SDVs to close should be approximately one second per inch of line size. Furthermore, the HIPPS system, when provided with extensive maintenance, testing and verification, should be as reliable or more so than the standard relief valve installation. A HIPPS installation requires extensive safety analyses, and should be considered only when modifications to the existing relief system are unreasonably difficult. Even when installing a HIPPS system, consideration should be given to installing a full flow relief valve anyway. Metering Metering on subsea tie-back projects can often be more complicated than first assumed. The complexity arises when the subsea tie-backs hydrocarbon production comes from a different lease than production on the existing host facility. If the host owner and the tie-back owner are different, metering can be even more complicated. Before commingling the host and tie-back production, the tie-back and host facility owners may dictate a metering accuracy near that required for custody transfer. Depending on the level of processing, i.e., separation, stabilization, etc., accurate metering can be difficult. The need to meter production before commingling may dictate adding a separator, changing a two phase separator to a three phase separator, adding new meters to host separators, etc. In addition to metering host and tie-back production before commingling, buyback meters often are required, such as those for fuel gas or pigging fluids. Liquid Metering. One metering challenge is handling rate fluctuations at the meter. For instance, if a turbine meter is used, rates should remain within 25 to 85% of the selected meter capacity. For subsea tie-backs, liquid flow rates often vary dramatically during normal operations or worse during start-up or rate changes. On one project, a combination of snap-acting and throttling liquid dump valves was used to maintain rates within an acceptable range. Another problem with metering liquid directly out of the separator is that the gas and liquid phases are at equilibrium in the vessel. Any pressure drop below separator pressure leads to flashing gas and inaccuracies in metering. One option, as was done on an oil production tie-back project, is to locate the meter as far below the separator outlet as possible, even on a lower deck. Also, consider using larger pipe upstream of the meter. Methanol in Oil. Another oil sales issue is the presence of methanol. Since methanol is used heavily in the subsea production for hydrate inhibition, a substantial amount of methanol will dissolve in the oil phase. Methanol presence in crude often has negative implication on the final sale of that oil.

To solve this problem, a number of subsea tie-back projects have been required to install water wash facilities (like those used for crude desalting) to remove the methanol from the crude. Typically, produced water from a non-subsea source (usually the host platform dry tree production) is used as this source is free of methanol contamination. On one project, for 15,000 BPD of contaminated oil, it took approximately 3,000 BPD of clean water to achieve a final methanol concentration of 120 PPM. Although the process is similar to crude desalting, the methanol is somewhat soluble in oil, and the water is more difficult to remove. Process Handling Agreement. Typically on a project where the operator/owners of the producing field and the host platform are different, there will be an agreement between the two parties explaining how they will operate. The Project Team designing the facilities does not typically write this document; however, this document often will have significant impact on the facilities design, especially metering design. The document is often missing the technical detail required to go straight to detail design and, depending upon who is reading the document, can be interpreted in different ways. It is a common mistake for the Project Team to assume that what the document meant to say was one thing, only to find out late in the project that something else was required. Hence, when the Process Handling Agreement is issued, the Project Team should assign a person or persons to translate the document into a design basis-type format with significant detail. This design basis-type document should be reviewed and approved by metering specialists, asset managers, etc., both parties having an ownership of the Process Handling Agreement. Where there are vague statements, the Project Team should try to obtain and document a consensus from all parties as soon as possible. Management of Change Management of change, specifically document change management, associated with a major platform upgrade, such as a subsea tie-back, is a significant task that should be given careful thought and up-front planning. A poor management system can lead to design mistakes and loss of integrity of the platforms definition documents. At the beginning of the project, the Project Team should take inventory of all the platform documents to determine their status (quality). The Project Team should determine which documents will be needed to execute the project, i.e., approval documents, construction documents or permitting documents. The Project Team should also determine which documents operations wishes to keep evergreen and which documents they do not. The Project Team should develop a procedure for modifying existing documents and adding new documents. How to handle platform documents when other modifications to the platform are taking place concurrently with the Subsea Tie-back Project must be addressed. Subsea Interface On a typical subsea tie-back project, the Topsides Team may be required to interface with a number of different entities. - Subsea and Flow Assurance - Riser & Flowline

OTC 15112

- Installation / Construction - Various Owners - Platform Operations - Regulatory (MMS, ABS, USCG) - Health, Safety & Environmental (HS&E) Of those listed above, the subsea/topsides interface is unique to subsea tie-back projects and is given attention in this paper. Since subsea tie-back projects have many similarities, a large number of the subsea/topsides interfaces can be established by looking at other subsea tie-back projects. Design Basis Data. As soon as possible, the Subsea Team should provide the Topsides Team with critical design information that will impact process design. - production rates - arrival pressures - arrival temperatures - slugging volumes and rates - chemical injection requirements - pigging requirements - flow control (choke) requirements Tracking Interfaces. Early in the project, as many interfaces as possible should be identified, while information needs and need dates should be established. An interface register or action item list should be started and maintained. If possible, each team should assign an engineer to interface with the other team. Regularly scheduled interface meetings should be established early on and maintained throughout the project. Also, an Interface Responsibilities Schematic should be generated. An example of this diagram is provided in Figure 4. This diagram will assist in identifying the various areas where attention is needed. This information may be presented in more than one drawing. It is recommended that all connections, cabling, utility requirements, and other interfaces be shown on a schematic. The schematic should identify connection size and type (this can get complicated with more and more global sourcing, i.e. European threads, etc.), who is responsible for providing the interconnecting material (electrical cable, piping, tubing, hydraulic hose, etc.), and who will be responsible for making the actual connections. Interfaces and responsibilities may be shown on typical project drawings as well, such as Piping and Instrument Diagrams. In addition to defining responsibility for providing or installing various equipment, responsibility for start-up and commissioning of each system must be identified. Flowline, Riser and Umbilical. The Topsides Team will have a physical interface with the flowline, riser and umbilical. Typical interfaces with each of these items include: Flowline and Riser - Number of lines - Size, material and wall thickness - Bend requirements is pigging required, if so, what type of pigs? - Design pressure and temperature requirements (spec breaks) - Hydrotesting and dewatering requirements - Connection location and type - Riser supports

- Installation impact on offshore hookup - Venting requirements (flexible risers) Umbilical - Structural support (I-tube, J-tube, etc.) - Interface location - Installation impact on offshore hookup Topsides Equipment. Subsea equipment will require support equipment to be located on the topsides facility. Often the equipment is supplied by the Subsea Team, hooked up by the Topsides Team and then commissioned by either or both teams. Some of the equipment typically installed on subsea tie-back projects includes the Umbilical Termination Unit, Hydraulic Power Unit, Automation and Controls System (MCS), etc. Typical interfaces with each of these equipment items include: Hydraulic Power Unit (HPU) - Footprint and weight - Need to be on emergency power - Normal control requirements - Power requirement - Number of motors - ESD interfaces - Additional hydraulic fluid storage requirements - Utility requirements - Cleanliness / flushing requirements - Drain connections Umbilical Termination Unit (UTU) - Footprint and weight - Upstream filtration requirements - Utility requirements - Normal control requirements - ESD interfaces - Fitting and tubing types - Drains - Cleanliness / flushing requirements - Location relative to umbilical requirement Master Control Station (MCS) and Instrumentation - Location of master control station - I/O from the subsea control system. - Power requirements for the subsea control station - Utility requirements for the subsea control station - Integration with other control systems - Provide weight, footprint and height of the equipment. - Will a separate control building be required? - Is UPS required? What are UPS requirements? Conclusion The information presented in this paper is based on experiences from project engineers who have completed subsea tie-back projects. This paper only addresses a limited scope of issues. Furthermore, each project has different circumstances and requirements and the solutions presented in this paper may not be applicable to all subsea tie-back projects. Nevertheless, many of the issues mentioned in this paper will need to be addressed on future subsea tie-back projects. It is hoped that the project engineer can use the lessons learned presented here to better plan and prepare for upcoming subsea tie-back projects.

OTC 15112

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

800 700 600 Relief Capacity (mmscfd) 500 400 300 200 100 0
1900

R e lie f C a p a c ity v s . A r r iv a l P r e s s u r e

3 0 ,0 0 0 B P D , 8 5 M M S C F D 2 5 ,0 0 0 B P D , 7 0 M M S C F D 2 0 ,0 0 0 B P D , 5 5 M M S C F D

FIGURE 3

F lo w lin e P S H S e t a t 3 5 0 0 p s ig In le t S e p a r a t o r O p . a t 1 9 0 0 p s ig

2000

2100 A r r iv a l P r e s s u r e ( p s ig )

2200

2300

OTC 15112

FIGURE 4